4 ms·
>coming almost entirely out of the pockets of lawyers and law firms? You mean their client's pockets? Thus making legal assistance more accessible for the weal
by stult 8y ago
>coming almost entirely out of the pockets of lawyers and law firms?
You mean their client's pockets? Thus making legal assistance more accessible for the wealthy than the poor.
And just because you can't think of a good use of the data doesn't mean there isn't one. I can think of dozens of analyses I would love to run on a large set of cases and filings. You could develop models to predict how likely the language used in a filing is to contribute to a favorable ruling. You could measure the speed with which filings are handled and compare it across jurisdictions. Picking a specific type of case and one where there's a jurisdictional split implicating administrability, you could develop a rough proxy measure for the relative costs of the alternative rules. Etc etc. And that's just the limited subset of what I randomly dreamt up in three seconds that I'm willing to take the time to type out on my phone.
Data analysis like that is possible and even relatively easy with a large, standardized, freely available data set (which BTW is what the person you are replying to meant by normalized). Twitter has been analyzed to death using NLP for that very reason.
- rayiner 8y ago> You mean their client's pockets? Thus making legal assistance more accessible for the wealthy than the poor. The price of legal services is based on supply and demand, not individual lawyers’ cost structures. Moreover, the rules already allow free PACER access for the poor. I’d bet the large bulk of PACER fees are actually coming from lawyers representing corporations and well-off individuals.